LA WAND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8362, 16 September 1890, Page 3

LA WAND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— Sittings. Monday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Isaac McLkod v. Henry Guthrie.—This was an action to recover the sum of £727 7s lOd, for timber sold, and there was a counter claim of £100. The case was set down to be tried by a jury of twelve. Mr. Theo. Cooper, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that in accordance with an order made by His Honor ha now asked that this case should stand over till the December sittings. The adjournment was granted.

Thompson Johnson v. R. Mitchelson.— This was an action to recover a sum of £239 3s 9d, for work done. There was a counter claim for £176 for goods and money supplied, and against this counter claim there was a set off for £110 8s lid, cheques paid. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the defendant. There was no appearance for the plaintiff. Mr. Hesketh said he would ask His Honor, under rule 59, that judgment be given dismissing the action with costs. He proposed to take judgment on the counter claim, and would call evidence in support of it. He called Henry Kerr, of Babylon, who deposed that he was employed by Messrs. Mitchelson as their book-keeper and storeman. Johnson, the plaintiff, had dealings at this store. Witness prepared the account for the £176 now claimed, and he supplied the goods and moneys mentioned in the account. The amount was now due. Witness was aware that defendant admitted the claim, but set-off two cheques. In February, 1888, he gave a cheque for £40 8s lid, out of which witness made payments of £17 3s, and £18 16s 10d, to certain natives on his behalf, and gave plaintiff the balance. These amounts did not appear in witness's books. On the same date he received a cheque for £70, out of which he paid some of Johnson's men's wages. Witness cashed the cheque for him, and out of it kept £32 lis 9d, money due by the wages men, and gave the balance to plaintiff. His Honor gave judgment for £176, with costs on the lowest scale, and said he supposed only one set of costs would be allowed. Mr. Hesketh quoted a judgment, in which Mr. Justice Gillies held that a counter claim was a separate action, and may be tried, although the first action was discontinued. On these grounds he contended that they had disposed of two actions, and he asked two sets of costs, according to the amounts of each claim. His Honor said the only costs which could be allowed was preparing the defence. He would give judgment with costs in the middle scale on the action, and costs on the lowest scale on the counter claim.

Cancellation of Letters of Administration. —Robert Crawford and another, as executors in the will of Mary E. Anderson, (deceased) v. Frederick Clarence Dean as administrator to M. E. Anderson, that letters of administration to defendant be recalled and cancelled. Mr. VV. Dignan appeared for the plaintiff. He said it was a formal application. It had come before His Honor in chambers, who, under Rule 516, directed that a writ must be issued. There was no appearance for the defendant, but the defence filed by him was a consent. Mr. Dignan put in the power of attorney revoking the previous power of attorney, and the letters of administration granted by Mr. Justice Gillies to the defendant were put in for cancellation. Judgment was given for revocation of the letters of administration, the costs to come out of the estate.

William Aiken v. Lewfwn Allan Wood.—This was an action brought for an order for the partition of certain land, and for the sale of the same. Mr. C. F. Buddie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. Coleman for the defendant. This was an action for the partition of certain property. The application to His Honor was made under section 75 of the Property Law Consolidation Act for inquiries to be made as to the nature of the property and the parties interested therein. The defendant admitted all the allegations, and requested partition. The order was made directing that the information be supplied to the Registrar, Mr. Coleman consenting on behalf of the defendant.

Edward Falconer Tizard and His Wife v. George Nathaniel Brassey and Others.—The claim was to have accounts taken touching certain trust moneys, etc. Mr. 11. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Cooper for Messrs. Fen ton and Motion, the trustees, and Mr. Cotter for Mr. Brassey and his wife. Mr. Thomas Brassey did not appear by counsel. The case aroso out of the following circumstances : — Thomas Brassey, senior, had a sum of money left him by his brother. This money he gave to his two sons, George Nathaniel Brassey and Thomas James Brassey, the gift to take effect after his death. G. N. Brassey settled his share upon his wife through trustees. Mr. Brassey had two other sons and one daughter, who all disputed the old gentleman's disposition, they giving notice to the English trustees that they claimed to have the disposition set aside. Mr. G. N. Brassey desiring to get the money remitted to New Zealand, and who always disputed the other brother and sister's right to any portion of the estate, took steps to have it realised, but finding it could not be done without the consent of all parties, made an agreement with his sister that she should have her one-fifth share in the money, some three or four hundred pounds. Mr. T. J. Brassey, who had always recognised the sister's rights, would not consent to the money coming unless her rights were recognised, and an agreement was made by which all parties including the trustees for Mrs. G. N. Brassey, agreed if Mrs. Tizard would withdraw opposition she should receive her full share. The present suit is brought to enforce the agreement made with her. The defence was that the agreement was ultra vires, and that the trustees had no power to make it. The defence raised two points, the first being whether the action of the trustees was ultra vires; and, second, whether the trust from England war, under the control of the trustees ? Mr. Cooper said he should contend that the trustees were not personally liable; and Mr. Campbell said that on the whole case there was only one defence—viz., that there was no power in the parties to lend this money, and that only in their capacities as trustees had they any power to deal with it. He called Thomas James Brassey, manager in Auckland of the New Zealand Insurance Company, and son of George J. Brassey, who deposed that he remembered the deed of appointment being made by his father in 1880 on the 9th December, and recognised his father's signature. There were five children at that time. . Objection was taken by Mr. Cooper to this evidence as to arrangements, and he submitted that the deed itself was the only evidence which could be given. Mr. Campbell said what he wanted to show was that it was a family dispute. His Honor said he did not see how he could receive the evidence. Mr. Campbell said his object was to show that there were disputes in the family. His Honor said that was admissable. Mr. Campbell said he purposed to show that the sister was entitled to a share in the estate. The witness in further evidence said there were disputes regarding the estate, and he and his brother G. N. Bras&ey took steps to have the estate in England wound up, and on the 23rd June, 1888, wrote re the disposition of the English property. After receiving this letter his brother wanted him to execute an order to get the funds out, but witness declined. Ho was acting then for his sister as well as himself. He could not say whether his sister had then received notice from the Court of Chancery, but he made it a condition that she should receive a fifth of the funds before he signed, and that was agreed to about August, 1888. Be received a letter from G. N. Brassey on the 16th August, 1888, acknowledging receipt of this letter. The agreement was made on the 2nd of November, because witness wanted embodied in it the condition as to his sister's proportion, but he eventually signed it, feeling satisfied that it would bring the money to his sister. IS was in consequence of the agreement he made with G. N. Brassey that his sister did not appear in the Court of Chancery. Witness also stated that he made a compromise with Willoughby Brassey, on payment of £200. He received a letter on the 7th of February, 1889, from G. N. Brassey, asking him to withdraw a letter which he had sent to Blythe and Dutton, asking them to stop proceedings until they got definite instructions that all was right. By Mr. Cooper: The deed of appointment was ratified by another deed, which he (witness) believed he sent home under the instruc- ; tions of Mr. G. N. Brassey. He was a I youngster at) the time, and acted under bis

brother's instructions. His father wag still alive, although, according to hia brother, he was dead six months ago. In obtaining the agreement of the 2nd of November, 1888, he acted for his sister. He was one of the trustees under his brother's marriage settlement, made in January, 1881. It was an antenuptial settlement. Mrs. Brassey was still alive, and there was issue of the marriage at the time of the deed. An order of the Court of Chancery was put in, directing that one portion should be paid to witness and the rest to those entitled under the marriage settlement. He had notice that) Mcllhone had been appointed trustee before this action was brought. Mr. Cotter did not cross-examine. In re-examination witness said : It was at G. N. Brassey's request that the agreement was not sent to the Court of Chancery, and that was why the Court of Chancery had not it before them. For the defence Mr. G. N. Brassey's bankruptcy was admitted, and also that he was still an undischarged bankrupt. G. N. Brassey, called by Mr. Cotter, deposed that neither he nor his wife had received a fraction of the money under the Order of Chancery. The money came out to the credit of Messrs. Fenton and Motion, to the Bank of New South Wales, and no application had been made to him or his wife to pay this money over to Mrs. Tizard or on her behalf. He denied that it was at his request the make-peace agreement referred to by his brother was not sent home. In answer to Mr. Campbell, the witness said he believed the money had been invested in taking up the mortgages of G. N. Brassey, including the house witness and G. N. Brassey were living in. He was questioned as to the disposition of the money and the release of mortgages, and said it was his father, not him, who purchased the house in which he now lived, although witness arranged the purchase. Mr. Cotter addressed the Court. Mr. Cooper replied, contending that the agreement was ultra, vires to the knowledge of the parties, and that this was not a suit for personal liability. It was not an action for which Mrs. Tizard could bring an action against the trustees. He submitted the agreement in itself was bad, and that the remedy for the plaintiff was to ask that the order of the Court of Chancery should be rescinded. He submitted that the contract as made by Messrs. Fenton and Motion was in their capacity as trustees, and that they were not personally liable, and if the trustees paid the money to Mrs. Tizard, it would be a breach ol trust, and the money could be followed and compulsorily returned. He contended that defendants were entitled to judgment, and that there was no personal liability on their parts. Mr. Campbell replied at considerable length, and contended that there were no words in the document to limit tha liability of the parties. Mr. Campbell had not completed his arguments when the Court adjourned till ten o'clock next morning.

POLICE COURT— [Before Mr. W. Lodder, J.P.] Drunkenness.—One man, a first offender, was fined 5s and costs, or 24 hours'. Albert Warner, for a second offence, vas fined 10s and costs, or, in default, 48 hours' hard labour. PORT ALBERT R.M. COURT. [Before Mr. John .Shepherd and Mr. W. B. Farr&nd. J.P.'s.] Alleged Larceny. — Robert Belcher, aged ]6, arrested on a warrant on August 27, and remanded by Court held on that day to September ] 1, was charged by Fred, J. Clarke wit> stealing £1 9s at Jos. Treaclwell's, blacksmith, Wollsford. Bail had been allowed for £10 and two sureties also £10 each. Prisoner pleaded not guilty. After hearing evidence from F. J. Clarke, Jos. Treadwell, Thomas Fletcher, ami Enoch Wilson, the prisoner was acquitted, the Court stating the complainant did right to bring the case forward. Rate Cases.—A number of rate cases of the Albertland South Road Board, represented by B. Martin Gubb, collector, were then dealt with as follows :Sidney A. Asher, owing rates 4s 9d ; paid into Court with costs 4s. Matthew Green, owing 5:3 3d ; case adjourned to October 9. William Corboy, owing 2s 6d ; stated to be dead. Charles Peterson, owing 7s 6d ; paid into Court, with costs 6s. George Dibble, owing £2 3s 9d ; paid into Court, with costs 6s. Thomas G. Hunt, owing 7s 6d ; paid into Court, with costs 10s. J. Shepherd (Town Lands Trustee), owing £6 10s 2d ; case :idjourned to October 9. Debt Cases. —Booth v. Clarence Young, claim for £3 13s; judgment for plaintiff, with costs 13s. L. Hey wood v. W. Brow claim for £22; judgment for £11 15s <>d, with costs £1 19s. Eremiha Paikea v. S. Cumins, claim for £30, rent of land ; adjourned to October 9. Peter Becroft v. T. E. Fitzgerald.— A charge of illegally removing a cow. The cow in question had been running a considerable time on the farm of a settler at Wharehine. From some cause it was taken, removed, and disposed of by defendant. On this coming to plaintiff's knowledge, ho claimed value, £5. It was understood this claim had been virtually paid into Court. S. Wyatt (Tauhoa) v. G. Rogers (Maungaturoto).Claim for ,£1 6s. Paid into Court, with costs, Bs. Thos. Horne v. Geo. Farrand.—This was a claim for compensation, £30, for damage to plaintiff's property by fire. Adjourned to October 9. F. Cray v. O. Rushbrook.—Claim, £11 13s lOd, for goods, etc. Judgment for plaintiff, costs 265. F. Cray v. Parata.— £20 2s. Adjourned. Chris. H. Drirble v. C. Carron.— Claim, £8, value of horse sold. Judgment for plaintiff; to be paid in one month, with costs, 14s.—[Own Correspondent.]